[ Page 4019 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 43). Committee stage.

Third reading –– 4019

Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 29). Committee stage.

Division on third reading –– 4019

Public Service Benefit Plan Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 30). Committee stage.

Third reading –– 4020

Public Service Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 37). Committee stage.

Third reading –– 4020

Pension Plans (I.W.A.-Forest Industry) Merger Validation Act (Bill PR402). Committee stage.

On section 1 –– 4020

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Segarty

Third reading –– 4020

Insurance Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 40). Committee stage.

Third reading –– 4021

Employment Standards Act (Bill 36). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 4022

Ms. Sanford –– 4023

Mr. Gabelmann –– 4025

Ms. Brown –– 4027

Mr. Hanson –– 4028

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 4029

TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I advise the House of the absence of the member for Shuswap- Revelstoke (Mr. King), the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who will be absent until the 26th of this month. They are on assignment from this office in Nova Scotia at a parliamentary conference.

MR. HYNDMAN: I wonder if members would join me this morning in recognizing and welcoming three citizens from the city of Vancouver, who are importantly involved in multicultural work: Dr. Katherine McGrady, who is the president of the Immigrant Services Society; Mrs. Beverly Nann, who is the chief coordinator of the home-school workers' project of the Immigrant Services Society; and Mr. William Brown, a trustee of the Greater Vancouver School Board. They are all in your gallery, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 43.

PENSION (PUBLIC SERVICE)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 43; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 19 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 43, Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 29, Mr. Speaker.

PENSION (TEACHERS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 29; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 16 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 20

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The House resumed: Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 29, Pension (Teachers) Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 20

[ Page 4020 ]

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 30.

PUBLIC SERVICE BENEFIT PLAN
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 30; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 30, Public Service Benefit Plan Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 37, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 37; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Section 2 approved on following division.

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 17

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to have the division recorded in the Journals of the House.

Sections 3 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 37, Public Service Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill PR402, Mr. Speaker.

PENSION PLANS
(I.W.A.-FOREST INDUSTRY)
MERGER VALIDATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill PR402; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. HANSON: I would like to direct a question to the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Segarty. I wonder if he could outline the actuarial assumptions in section 1 and how they relate to the merger.

MR. SEGARTY: That was discussed in committee on private bills. You were there at that time with Mr. Munro, who was there along with the pension actuary, Mr. Geoffrey Calvert.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill PR402, Pension Plans (I.W.A.-Forest Industry) Merger Validation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 40, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources should ask leave of the House to go backwards on the order paper.

[ Page 4021 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I beg your pardon. I'm going on the same list you've got, I assume.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

The House in committee on Bill 40; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, everything that has been done so far on private members' bills is out of order. It's not private members' day, and leave was not asked to go into private members' bills. I would think members might be in the House had they known that such business would be brought up today. It's not in the orders of the day.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm talking about orders of the day. If there was competency over there, in terms of the House Leader, they would have asked leave that we proceed with these things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the committee cannot decide on that. That matter would have to be brought to the House. We are in committee.

MR. NICOLSON: I move that the committee rise and report to the House in order to get leave to proceed with private members' bills.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no such motion in our standing orders, hon. member.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: What the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) is saying is inaccurate. He's making an accusation from his seat in the House. When we were in the House I rose on a point of order and said: "This should be done by leave; do it properly." The government House Leader didn't seek to do that at the time, but we granted leave in any event through Mr. Speaker. I think it's improper for the Attorney-General to start making snide accusations across the floor.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, hon. members, we are in committee. The committee has been called to discuss Bill 40. That is the only matter that the committee can debate, and I'm sure all hon. members are aware of that. Matters to be brought to the attention of the House will have to be brought to the attention of the House when we are in the House.

Sections 4 to 16 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 40, Insurance Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources on a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I rose to my feet on a point of order before the hon. member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I have recognized on a point of order...

MR. NICOLSON: Well, you must be deaf, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: ...the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief. For the record of the House, and if there's some necessity to do something further, I'm sure it could be agreed, but it's my understanding that technically the House Leader should have sought leave to go into private members' bills in committee stage, or to go back on the order paper. It was my understanding that the House Leader for the opposition did grant that leave while you were in the chair, and I assumed that that would be all that was necessary, Mr. Speaker. If there's something further necessary, then we'll be glad to proceed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the same point of order, the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: I don't recall hearing the Chair asking for leave. It isn't up to the House Leader to ask for leave; it's for the Chair to ask leave, Mr. Speaker. Today being Tuesday, the orders of the day are public bills and orders, private bills and public bills in the hands of private members. On reflection, perhaps it is in order that we be going here. But if we're going to go back to public bills, then we're certainly going to have to ask leave, because then we would be going into the orders: public bills, private bills, public bills in the hands of private members. It would then put us into public bills once we finish this order of business, unless leave is granted to go back to government bills.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, hopefully to help clarify the matter, during the previous discussion the Chair did indicate to the opposition House Leader that leave had been granted, although leave had not been asked by the Chair. Possibly that is where the confusion arose. The points made by both the member for Nelson-Creston and the minister were taken by the Chair. I hope that resolves the matter.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Second reading of Bill 36. Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Nelson-Creston.

[ Page 4022 ]

MR. NICOLSON: My point is that, on reflection, I said that the government was perhaps correct: the House Leader could call for public bills, then could go to the private bills from the private bills committee. But now, if the government wants to go back to Bill 36, they're going to have to ask leave, because now on orders of the day we are on public bills in the hands of private members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, leave having been granted previously, the Chair will take the matter under advisement. But the leave aspect has been considered and, I believe, addressed by the House. However, if it would help resolve some matter, possibly the Chair could at this time ask for leave again, although this would be.... Leave has been granted, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: And put by the Chair?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And put by the Chair, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: To do which?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To go back to public bills.

MR. NICOLSON: Just this moment right now?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It was done prior to entering committee, hon. member, and that was where the confusion arose. The Chair then made that explanation, I hoped satisfactorily, to the members of the House. If the member is desirous of a full....

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, did the Chair ask for leave earlier today to go on to Bill PR402?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's where the confusion arose, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: Did the Chair ask for leave then?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave was given, but it was not asked.

MR. NICOLSON: It was not asked; it can't be given. It isn't the two House Leaders who run the House; the Speaker runs the House. I'm saying that we can rectify this now, but it is our right to proceed with our private members' bills now, our public bills in the hands of private members, the ones that the members of the House have prepared. We're at that point. If we want to give that up, then we must give that right up at this point by granting leave, and leave should be asked by the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair is going to take the matter under advisement and review what has happened, because there seems to be some confusion as to what just did take place. Leave having been granted previously, I will now go back to the House Leader, who has called for second reading of Bill 36. I will take the matter under advisement as raised by the hon. member for Nelson-Creston.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I have a few short remarks on second reading of Bill 36, entitled the Employment Standards Act. The purpose of the act was to improve some standards, and it was obviously to make additional standards as well. There are also new provisions with respect to procedure and enforcement.

Probably one of the main features of the act was to incorporate within one statute a number of standards which had previously been incorporated in ten other statutes. I need not name the statutes. Since the introduction of the bill it certainly has been interesting to hear from the public, which in many cases was never really aware of some of the laws which had been on the books for 5, 10, 15 and in one case up to 34 years. The public was wondering whether this was something new; it wasn't. The additional standards that I think we should take note of involve termination of employment and notice, or payment in lieu of notice. The standards are not pace-setting. They are minimum and, in my view, will be accepted by most.

Probably one of the items under the legislation drawing the most interest involved licensing of farm-labour contractors and the terms and conditions under which licences may be obtained. The legislation also covers all employees, including farm workers and domestics. From time to time, to make the legislation function properly, it will be required to make certain exemptions by regulations. I think it's only proper to advise you in advance, Mr. Speaker, that where farm-labour contractors are involved there will be exemption by regulation, as I have mentioned on a number of previous occasions, involving hours of work, overtime pay and general holiday pay. Right now the research department in my ministry is attempting to work out acceptable regulations to accommodate those who have traditionally earned their living by piecework. In many areas of the agriculture industry there is an hourly rate set. Interestingly enough, in most cases it is above the minimum wage.

As far as the farm-labour contractors are concerned, Mr. Speaker, you might be interested in the fact that to date there has not been one complaint filed with the labour standards division in my ministry — not one. I'm not saying that they won't come, but it is interesting to note the effect of the proposed legislation in its early, embryonic stage and also since its introduction in the House.

Four major items are covered in the act. All of these are the result of discussions which involved, in some degree, the agriculture industry. One was mandatory licensing of all farm-labour contractors; that is within the legislation. Posting bonds is within the legislation. Wages to be paid weekly is within the legislation — and also within 72 hours after the pay period. Another important thing, and something which the farming community was quite prepared to support, is liability to a farmer should he contract with an unlicensed farm-labour contractor.

Administration enforcement procedure under the present act falls mainly under the jurisdiction of the Board of Industrial Relations. Under the new act we will find the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council making regulations for minimum wages, general holidays and specific exemptions when required. There is a great deal of administration now placed with the director of employment standards, who will be responsible for the administration, variances, licences, and registration certificates for wages. The new Employment

[ Page 4023 ]

Standards Board takes the place of the Board of Industrial Relations. It contains the additional feature that in fact it will act in an adjudicative role only. When any disputes are subject to appeal, that board, when hearing them, will hear them for the first time — not as is presently set up where the members of the Board of Industrial Relations often act as prosecutor and judge and jury. By the way, that particular point was identified in a reported decision, and it was best that it be resolved administratively in this fashion.

The act also provides minimum requirements for overtime wages, rest periods, lunch breaks, call out and notice of shift assignments. Hours of work are established at 40 hours. Prior to that it was 44. Rate of pay is time and a half from 8 to 11 hours and double time thereafter. Those provisions are contained within existing minimum wage regulations.

I think it should be noted, though, that the overtime provisions contained within the proposed legislation do not apply to overtime provisions in collective agreements. They will be governed in accordance with the collective agreement. I think all members of the House would realize the wisdom of that particular provision.

There is one point which might be of some concern. Frankly, I think it's the best way to handle a rather difficult problem. The previous Hours of Work Act did not allow for working in excess of eight hours per day without an exemption. The fact now is that permission is not required. The significant thing is that there were countless numbers of infractions and contraventions of the legislation. If people are prepared to work and want to work, they're going to work. I would always hope that that freedom would be available to them.

The enforcement of the present law was extremely difficult. If an exemption was not requested and somebody wanted to work, they would proceed. If a complaint was laid, the next problem would come up, and that is how you enforce any violation. Do you send out people from the labour standards branch looking around to see whether the lights are on at night or checking the payroll books? Really, it was unworkable.

The important thing in this case is that the director can regulate where hours are excessive, unnecessary or detrimental to health. In my view it was certainly more sensible since the 40-hour week is established, and after that overtime rates come into play.

There are a couple of items prior to concluding, Mr. Speaker. Existing standards are present. It incorporates a number of the better features in present legislation, but I think there are some items which bear mentioning. Annual vacations are three weeks after five years, which is a minimum standard. At that time there is holiday pay at the rate of 6 percent. I've mentioned earlier the reduction from a 44-hour to a 40-hour week. Most people thought that 40 hours was, in fact, the existing work week. Also, maternity leave has been increased from 16 to 18 weeks. The important point in this particular section is that the benefits which are in place at the time an employee leaves for maternity reasons still continue. Also their job, or an equivalent job, is available upon return.

The minimum wage also applies to all. As far as notice of termination is concerned, the qualifying period is six months; after three years it is one week for each year, to a maximum of eight weeks.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I think it's interesting to note that most of those standards are in place in any event. I might mention to the House that most of the complaints filed or inquiries made through the labour standards branch in the ministry relate to notice. As a matter of interest I wanted a canvass done of the entire province. I had it done on a Monday, a slow day, to see where the number of complaints were. There were 553 complaints that came in. Approximately 10 percent, or 52, related to what were the provisions with respect to notice. Of course, they're nonexistent. I might tell you they are in practice right across this dominion, with the exception of New Brunswick.

There will be panels available now, with a chairman and two wing members on a panel for the purposes of hearing any appeals.

I would also mention that there are some amendments. The proposed amendment bill has been filed in the House.

I would now like to move second reading.

MS. SANFORD: I was beginning to wonder if we would ever see the day where we actually saw the compilation and the upgrading of what are the minimum standards for employment in the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, you were not here at the time, but between the years 1972 to 1975, the former Minister of Labour, the now member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), had done most of the work in preparing this compilation and preparing this upgrading of the basic standards under which the people of this province work.

In the throne speech in 1976 we were promised that we would see this legislation that year. But 1976 went by, 1977 went by, 1978, 1979, and now finally in 1980 we have this statute which, as the minister pointed out, is the very minimum in terms of the employment conditions under which people work in this province.

What we have, Mr. Speaker, is just a catchup to what has been happening across the country over the years while this government has been sitting there and not taking any action with respect to these basic standards. So there is nothing very forward-looking in the statute that we see today. In fact, there are glaring omissions in what should be the basic minimum standards that people work under in 1980.

Finally we have what is a catchup to what already exists in most provinces in Canada. But, Mr. Speaker, I guess it is too much to expect anything that is forward-looking in terms of providing basic minimal standards of employment from that government. I don't think that we could expect much more than just a catchup to what has already taken place across the country.

The minister stated, Mr. Speaker, at some point outside the Legislature at a press conference that he would stake his seat on the matter of whether or not domestics and farmworkers would be covered by this legislation. That is a big improvement. True, they are now covered by this statute, but I was not convinced in the opening remarks of the minister today when he introduced second reading of this bill that full coverage of the minimal standards will be extended to both domestics and farmworkers. Right after he mentioned domestics and farmworkers, he hastily added that there will be exemptions by regulations.

I am not convinced by the minister today that both domestics and farmworkers will be entitled to the same basic benefits that other people who work in this province will be entitled to under this legislation. He talked about the prob-

[ Page 4024 ]

lems with piecework, holiday pay and overtime pay. These are regulations and problems that people within his ministry are now working on.

I want the minister to assure this House again today — at least for the first time, because he didn't assure the House before — that domestics and farmworkers will have the coverage that other workers are entitled to and that, in fact, he will stake his seat as Minister of Labour to ensure that that basic coverage is extended to them.

I'm hoping that when the minister winds up second reading.... I urge him to give the assurance to this House and to all of the people who are working as domestics and farmworkers in this province that they will have that basic coverage.

Mr. Speaker, one of the glaring omissions in this particular statute relates to modern industry, in that we are seeing mass layoffs across the country. We have seen what has happened with Inco workers; we have seen the major problems that exist now in the auto industry, and yet there is absolutely nothing in this legislation, Mr. Speaker, that recognizes the problems of automation, economic problems, or whatever, that would cause mass layoffs or plant closures. There is nothing in there. I don't think the minister even recognizes that the problem exists. Certainly there is other minimal employment standards legislation across this country that has recognized that problem, that has recognized that mass layoffs take place, that people are thrown out of their homes, that they lose their jobs. They've invested years and years of service in a company and are put out on their ear.

In Quebec, for instance, recognition has been given to that particular problem, but here we don't even have a passing reference in Bill 36 to the problems associated with plant closures and mass layoffs. There is nothing here, and I think the minister has been very negligent in not coming to grips with that particular problem.

I mentioned that this was catchup legislation, but in some parts of Canada legislation already exists which in fact improves on the statute that we have in front of us today, even though we waited all these years to receive this statute. For instance, New Brunswick and the Canada Labour Code provide that written notice for termination of employment be given after three months of employment, but this statute requires six months of employment before notice is given. Now surely, Mr. Speaker, if we're introducing new legislation today, the least we can do is reach the standard of New Brunswick and some of the other statutes that currently exist throughout Canada.

One of the things that disappoints me about the legislation is that an employer is required to give each employee at least 32 consecutive hours free from work each week or to pay the employee double time during that period. Now this is the same length of break that was in the previous basic employment standards — or, as it was called, labour standards — legislation for this province. Certainly, in my view, that basic 32 hours should have been extended to 48 hours, so that people would have a clear two days which they could call their own. That already exists in some other provinces — for example, in Saskatchewan that provision exists. So we've had no improvement there whatsoever.

Now that the coverage apparently — and I'm saying this very carefully, because we don't know what those regulations are going to contain — has been extended to farmworkers and domestics, I'm wondering if the minister has discussed with the WCB commissioners the matter of extending compulsory WCB coverage to both domestics and farmworkers in B.C. If not, I certainly would recommend to the minister that domestics and farmworkers receive that basic coverage as well. By the way, Mr. Speaker, that was a recommendation that was made by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who then sat as the member for North Vancouver–Seymour — that WCB coverage be extended to those two areas.

Another problem with the legislation, as I see it, is that there has been no provision for reinstatement of an employee who has been wrongfully dismissed. Many of these cases require more than just a payment; they require actual reinstatement, because the employee has perhaps worked for many years for a company and for some reason or another has been wrongfully dismissed. I believe that they should have that right to reinstatement, not just notice or whatever — sometimes they're just given notice. If it's a wrongful dismissal, then I think he should have the right to make some appeal so that he can be reinstated. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment on the order paper to that effect and will be discussing it further at that time.

There are no penalties whatsoever in this legislation for those employers who defy the minimum wage or the general holiday regulations, and I think that's an omission on the part of the Minister of Labour. That means that there is no incentive for an employer to comply with whatever minimum wage or general holiday regulations are established. The only penalty for non-compliance is for the board to order the employer to pay what he should have paid in the first place, with no additional penalty. So all he has to do is pay what he already owes, and there is no incentive in those instances to ensure that.... There is no penalty for those employers who violate the basic minimum wage provisions or the general holiday regulations.

Maternity provisions. Again, this is just a catchup to what is happening in other parts of the country today. But there is an amendment on the order paper which concerns me, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the maternity provisions, and that is that it is an offence to violate the maternity provisions that exist in this legislation. But because the minister has introduced an amendment on the order paper, the board can't issue an order where there is a violation of those provisions. So we have a catch-22 situation. It's a violation on one hand, and on the other hand, through the amendment introduced by the minister, the board is not going to have any power to do anything about it because it's not going to be able to issue any order. I don't understand why the minister would have taken that retrograde step. I'm hoping that in winding up second reading he can make some comment on that.

The establishment of the section with relation to farmworkers and those people who employ farmworkers is one that I'm quite pleased to see. Farm labour contractors should have been covered under this legislation a long time ago. The violations that have existed there — the exploitation of farmworkers in this province — we should never have permitted in this country of Canada. It was an incredible situation where people went unpaid, proper records weren't kept of the hours that were worked, charges were made for transportation to and from work which were exploitive, UIC payments weren't even made on the part of the employees — just an incredible list of exploitive measures that were conducted in that section of farm labour contractors.

I suggested last year that a system of bonding and licens-

[ Page 4025 ]

ing be established for these contractors. Last year the then Minister of Labour indicated that there were too many problems with that particular approach. I'm pleased that whatever problems there were at that time have been overcome and that the minister has included a provision for bonding and licensing of these contractors. I hope that eliminates the exploitation that's taking place there. But I'm wondering how long it is going to take the minister to come up with a system of bonding and a method of licensing. Are these provisions going to be ready by the end of the year, for instance? What sort of bonding is he looking at? It seems to me that because some of these farm contractors employ many, many people a $50,000 bond would certainly not be unreasonable in some instances — in fact I think it would be minimal — to ensure that farm workers are in fact paid if there is some violation by the farm labour contractor.

I'm not sure whether or not the issue I want to raise next should come under the basic employment standards, but I thought I would raise this issue with the minister to get his comments. I'm not sure whether it should be a separate statute or whether it should be Workers' Compensation Board regulations, but a situation has been brought to my attention which certainly is not covered in this particular Bill 36 that we're discussing today. This is a situation where there are no minimal standards required for the temperature under which employees are sometimes forced to work in a building, for instance. These particular persons complain because they are often forced to work at extremely cold temperatures. They talk about the temperature dropping below zero degrees Fahrenheit, and yet the employer is not obligated to provide any source of heat whatsoever for the employee. When people are required to stay at a machine and are not able to leave to go to a source of heat to get warmed up — the lunchroom or whatever else — it can be a very unpleasant, difficult situation for employees. I'm wondering if the minister has thought about where it should come in and whether in fact the minister might consider including it in these basic minimal standards. I suppose the same could go for extreme temperatures on the other side of the scale, where employees suffer because of intense heat.

There are some sections in the old legislation that have been omitted in this legislation, which, again, is retrograde. For instance, it was necessary before that employment agencies notify prospective employees who were being sent out to a job somewhere or other that there was, in fact, a labour dispute in progress. That particular section has been eliminated. I think it's a mistake on the part of the minister, and I think that as a result of that you're encouraging strikebreaking in the province. I don't think the minister would want to be a part of that — at least, I'm hopeful that he would not. I strongly feel that the minister has made an error there in those particular sections — there are two of them — and they should be returned to the statute.

The other area where the minister has failed, in my view, relates to the concept of employees' wages coming first in any demand through bankruptcy or a company going into receivership. What the minister has done in this particular statute is to enshrine what is known as the Homeplan decision, whereby employees — under one section of this bill, where there is land and a mortgage involved — do not have first call on the moneys that are left following a receivership or bankruptcy. I know the two are different and one is federal and so on, but that's a whole other issue. But I do want to bring this to the attention of the minister during second reading. It is essential, in my view, that the wages of employees come first. They are the ones who put out the work and effort, have families to feed, mortgages to meet, car payments and all of these other things. For them not to have first claim is an error. That Homeplan decision, I know, was a supreme court decision, but it was based more on inadequate wording in the previous statute than on the concept that employees' wages should come second. It's a mistake, Mr. Speaker, and I'm hopeful that the amendment that I have introduced on the order paper will be accepted by the minister.

The minister spoke about enforcement. You know, over the years one of the biggest problems with enforcing these basic standards has been that people are unaware of the standards and don't know how to proceed even if they are aware that they are not being paid the minimum wage — or whatever other provision in the statute is being broken. I don't think that the minister has come to grips with the problems related to enforcement of what are really basic, minimal standards for employees in the province. Has the minister considered any way of ensuring that the standards are understood by both employees and employers, that the procedures for notifying the new Employment Standards Board are made known to everyone in the province who works under these basic standards?

I foresee that there are still going to be severe problems in terms of employees working under conditions that are even minimal. In other words, they will work below those conditions because they are unaware of what their basic rights are. I know it's a problem, Mr. Speaker. It's not an easy problem to overcome. But it's one which I feel the minister and his ministry should address. I'm not convinced that the new Employment Standards Board is going to improve that area at all.

Finally, I think most of the discussions surrounding this bill will come up in committee stage. There are a number of amendments proposed by the minister, and a number proposed by myself. But we see, in section 105 of this statute, more power being assumed by the cabinet again. This is typical of the way in which this government has proceeded, statute after statute after statute. The minister admitted this morning, in his opening remarks, that the cabinet will be given more power and that the director of the new Employment Standards Board will have less power. You know, we're arriving at the stage where everything's going to be done by that cabinet. They're going to run a dictatorship over there, Mr. Speaker. There's no question about it. I object to the fact that the authority to grant exemptions or regulations is now given to cabinet entirely and taken away from the director. That's not the way we should be operating in this province. Why do we set up these employment standards boards? Why do we set up all of these other agencies and boards, if the cabinet is going to make all of the decisions? A dictatorship, Mr. Speaker — that's what it's becoming. This statute is another example of it.

MR. GABELMANN: The important debate on this bill will not take place here in the Legislature. The important debate on this bill will take place in cabinet, if, in fact, cabinet takes the time to debate the bill when the regulations attendant to it are presented to a subsequent cabinet meeting. And that, primarily, is my objection to this legislation.

I'm going to support it; it's progressive legislation. As the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) said, it brings us up to

[ Page 4026 ]

about 1975, and for that government that's not bad: only five years behind. Although there are a variety of issues within the legislation that concern me, the essential element that the public should understand and that the people who will be protected by this legislation or covered by this legislation — those are two different things — should understand is that in fact the rules and regulations under which they work will be debated not here in this Legislature, where they should be debated, but in cabinet when the minister brings the regulations to the cabinet for approval. I find that wrong in principle.

I appreciate why the minister has done it. It's complicated legislation. It's particularly complicated when it comes to farmworkers and domestics; I'm well aware of that, Mr. Speaker. In 1974 and 1975 I spent considerable time studying and reporting on this particular problem. In fact, I was chairperson of an all-party House committee. We spent several months travelling around this province, soliciting and receiving views from a variety of people: farmers, farmworkers, domestics, people who are concerned with employment of domestics. By unanimous decision of an all-party committee, we were able to come up with some pretty good recommendations about how these things could be done in legislation.

We accepted the fact that there are different employment conditions on farms than there are in factories. We accepted the fact, as repugnant as it is to some of us, that there is a necessity for there to be piecework. The principle appalls me, but the realities are such that it's important and necessary in some agriculture industries. We accepted that; it was a compromise I made in terms of my own position on the issue. We accepted that there are times when farmworkers have to work a long day and a long week, and there are times when they have to suddenly stop work and suddenly start work without very much notice. We accepted those kinds of problems and many others. But the committee was able, through its report, to make recommendations to this House in 1975 that dealt with those problems by legislation, and that's how they should have been dealt with.

The minister and his predecessor and his ministry have had five and a half years since the introduction of that report to find a way to enact by statute the recommendations of that all-party committee. This legislation does not do that. This legislation has been hailed as being a breakthrough for farmworkers and domestics because it now covers them. That's not true, Mr. Speaker. The minister, through order-in-council, can have the cabinet exempt farmworkers and domestics or any category or any portion of farmworkers and domestics, should he choose. This legislation has been hailed in some quarters as saying, for example, that domestics are now covered by labour legislation and they are protected. But they're not. They're given an eight-hour day, but what happens in the other 16? What happens relating to the charges that an employer can impose upon that domestic worker for room and board? There are no limitations, no rules; nor is it implied that they will even be developed in the regulations. That's if, in fact, the regulations proceed to cover these people.

Judging by the comments that float around these buildings and float around this province, even if the minister is in favour of making sure that farmworkers and domestics are fully covered, he will lose that fight in cabinet. He certainly would lose it in full caucus. That's been clear. Even though it's five years out of date, the minister is ahead of his caucus and ahead of his cabinet, and for that some small measure of credit should be given to the minister, but I'm predicting here and now that he will lose some important battles if he decides to take them on. He will lose some important battles in making certain that all workers in this province are covered by minimal labour standards, or employment standards. I want the minister to assure me that I'm wrong. If I'm wrong I will get up in committee and acknowledge that ten years from now, when you've proven it. Mr. Speaker, that is my single major concern about the bill: the fact that it allows the real decisions to be made outside of this legislative chamber.

If I may take just a minute to deal with that point, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing an increasing number of bills being introduced into this House that are taking away from this Legislature the right to make decisions and putting it into the cabinet. That's wrong on a number of counts. All the people's representatives should discuss the legislation under which they live. We'll live with the majority decision of this House, but all the people who are elected to represent the population out there should be making those decisions, if only because the discussions and the decisions in cabinet are private. I might modify or downgrade my criticism if the press were allowed into cabinet meetings when you have these discussions so that the public can know what's going on. That doesn't happen. I'm not sure the press should be in the cabinet room. Since they can't be and they aren't, those decisions should be made here in this House. That, Mr. Speaker, is my objection to this legislation.

As I said earlier, it would have been reasonable legislation in 1975. In 1975 it would have been the pace-setter for this country, in the same way as in 1973 labour code legislation was the pace-setter in this country. As the member for Comox has indicated, on several counts we are now behind other provinces in this country in labour standards. That's not appropriate for a highly industrialized, highly organized, progressive province such as the one we live in. We should be the pace-setters in labour matters. With this bill we're not.

It is difficult to debate the bill, because, as I said, it doesn't provide us with all the information we need, because that will be in the regulations.

In introducing the bill the minister said something that puzzled me. Perhaps I haven't understood it; if so, I stand to be corrected by the minister. In discussing one particular aspect of the bill I think he said in effect that where the collective agreement is better than the legislation the collective agreement shall apply.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: If the minister, in discussing the overtime issue, didn't say that, I'd like him to clarify that in his conclusion of the debate. Nowhere in the statute can I find what an employer does when there is a conflict between this legislation — which is the law of the land if it passes — and the collective agreement under which he operates. My approach to this kind of legislation is that the collective agreement should apply in all instances — that where there is conflict between the collective agreement and the minimum labour standards, then the higher benefit, which is usually through the collective agreement, shall apply. The minister needs to clarify that because that becomes complicated. What happens when there is argument about which is the higher benefit, the standard or the collective agreement?

My personal view is that the collective agreement should

[ Page 4027 ]

apply and that this legislation is just to fill in the cracks for those people who have not yet been fortunate enough to fall under a collective agreement, rather than these very minimal standards.

The member for Comox has discussed the concern that I think all of us on this side of the House have about termination notices. It's behind the times; it's not adequate. It's certainly not as good as in some other jurisdictions and it's not nearly good enough for this province. The termination notice should be upgraded dramatically in this bill, and I hope that that will happen — if not in amendments this week or subsequent to this week, certainly in the next session of the House.

On another issue, the supreme court made a decision some time ago that affected payment of wages as the first priority when a business goes under. The minister has not dealt with that supreme court decision. The minister has not ensured in this legislation that workers get first priority, as I read the legislation. Workers should get first priority on the money that comes out of a firm that has gone belly up. The first responsibility in our society is to make sure that those people who work get paid, and the bill does not do that, as I read it.

In any collective agreement there is provision for reinstatement for wrongful dismissal. That is a basic labour standard. It's not in this bill, and I don't understand why. What this bill is or should be, Mr. Speaker, is a collective agreement for those people who haven't yet had the opportunity to negotiate their own collective agreement. To leave out an essential element of a collective agreement — reinstatement for wrongful dismissal — is to have an incomplete collective agreement. I don't understand why the minister has decided not to include that essential element. Why, Mr. Minister, have you taken the section that doesn't allow employment agencies to strike-break out of the earlier legislation? It's gone. You have a perturbed look on your face, but it's gone; that section is gone. Employment agencies can now send or direct workers to strike-bound operations, and that, too, is wrong. That, too, is a basic standard that should be upheld here in this province.

My final point is not the most important point, because the most important point is that this bill is done by regulation. Enforcement and information are essential. First of all, those people who work in those sectors of our society that are not covered by trade union agreements do not have daily, weekly or even periodic contact with a business agent or staff representative of a union. Therefore they are not regularly kept up to date with the nature of their collective agreement. It happens in the normal workplace situation where there's a union. There are study sessions and all kinds of training and informational educational programs to make sure that all the workers in the plant understand what the collective agreement guarantees them. Here we have a collective agreement for those people in our society who do not have unions.

The minister must make certain that these people who are covered by the collective agreement that he is imposing on them have business agents or staff representatives to make them aware of the nature of their collective agreement. These are people who do not have trade unions. Without that information provided by a business agent — or, in this case, a member of the ministry staff — those workers have nothing. Without knowledge there is no power or ability to protect your own rights. It is absolutely essential that the staff in the ministry be upgraded. I mean that in two senses. It should be upgraded in terms of numbers and their attitude as to what their job is. Their job is to act as the business agent acts on behalf of the collective agreement. They are not there to be an impartial arbiter between management and labour, because the government has taken on the responsibility through this legislation of providing a collective agreement for those people. Therefore they must provide them with the wherewithal to enforce that collective agreement. Those officers of the department, in conducting their business and doing their work, must remember that their responsibility is to the enforcement of this collective agreement, and in order to enforce the collective agreement those people covered by it must be informed about it.

Those are two important tasks essential to the working of this legislation. In doing that, some of those staff people in the ministry must be able to speak a variety of languages and have a budget that allows them to print leaflets describing benefits in a number of languages. As so often and historically has happened in this society, those people who are new to our country and not familiar with either our laws or customs or language are the people who end up working in areas where this collective agreement applies for them. We therefore must have a much larger budget than is now presently available to the ministry so that people can be informed in their own language by the staff and literature prepared by the ministry.

I'll leave it at that, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to support the bill, because by Social Credit standards it's only five years old, and that's not bad. Most of his colleagues are 10 or 15 years behind, but he's only five years behind. For that reason I'm going to support it, but there better be some amendments in the next year or two to bring this up to what should be British Columbia standards in 1980 or 1981.

MS. BROWN: I too would like to express my concern about whether the rights outlined in this legislation on behalf of working people are going to be extended to cover domestics and farmworkers. It's because I'm afraid that this bill may be a cruel hoax that I thought I should give the minister a bit of history — a little bit of background — about the struggle that women who have worked as domestics down through the years have been involved in, in terms of trying to get decent working conditions and decent wages for the job they do.

One of the oldest women's groups in this country, the Council of Women, which was formed in 1896, gave itself as its very first task working on behalf of domestics — women who worked in the home — that they had decent working conditions, that they were paid decent wages and that they did in fact receive their wages.

I don't know if you can cast your mind that far back, Mr. Speaker, but back in the beginning, before the days of washing machines, vacuum cleaners, floor polishers, dishwashers and that kind of thing, it was almost impossible for a household to exist without having hired help.

Also, back in those days, when employment for women was unheard of — and of course, if the woman was of a "genteel" or an upper class.... What families would do would be to invite single women from Great Britain to come to this country to live with them and to be their household help. A number of the young women who came to this country were actually sent here by their churches and enticed here by other churches who felt that they were single and were not going to be married. So the safest thing for them

[ Page 4028 ]

would be to live with a household, assist with the household chores, and in exchange get room and board and a very small remuneration. This was back in the 1800s in Canada.

But it soon became apparent, even to these churches and other women, that these women were being exploited: that they were working very long hours, that their living conditions were in many instances totally unsatisfactory, and that their wages were very, very low, and in many instances they didn't receive them. That is why the Council of Women, which was an organization of women right across Canada, when it came into existence gave itself as its first responsibility — its first priority, its first task — working to improve the status of these women who were working in the homes as domestics. The struggle has been going on since then.

This really is the first piece of legislation in this province which we hope is going to see an end to that struggle. It would be a very, very cruel hoax if in fact when the regulations came down we discovered that this particular group of workers were going to be exempted from some of the rules, regulations and rights outlined in this piece of legislation as it applies to workers. The interesting thing that's happened to domestics is that they are no longer confined only to the private home; in fact what we have is a group of workers, also designated as domestics, who are hired in long-term care through the Ministry of Health and as homemakers through the Ministry of Human Resources. These are people who essentially do the same kind of job as domestics do in the private home but in a public place — in hospitals, in long-term care facilities and in the homes of senior citizens who can no longer take care of themselves. They are paid by the government — by other ministries like the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Human Resources. When they are excepted from this legislation they are open to exploitation not just by individuals but by the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Human Resources or employers who hire not just one or two domestics but a number of people to do the job which is referred to as "domestic work."

So I think that when the minister is looking at his regulations and drafting his regulations he should take into account that he is also looking at people who are doing "domestic" work outside of the home. He's looking at the homemakers and at the people in long-term care as well as the "nannies," the housekeepers and the people who live in the home. He should also take into account that more than 90 percent of these people are women. The whole problem, which we have discussed on the floor of this House a number of times, is about the poverty, the poor wages and working conditions that women experience in the workforce, and it's certainly one that he should take into account when he's dealing with this issue.

The other area I want to touch on very briefly is a section dealing with employment of children. I certainly am concerned about that particular section, in view of the amendments which the minister has introduced to that particular section. I will be speaking in more detail about it when the bill goes into committee.

It's not good enough just to say that children under 15 can be employed if there is permission from the director. There should be some kind of statement about the working conditions and the workplace, and about the protection of children who work. What we have are different ministries, all of which touch the lives of children, and which are very clearly not speaking to each other and not working out some kind of overall decisions affecting the lives of children.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Before the minister introduced this kind of legislation he should have probably discussed it with the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), or at least taken a look at things like legislation for the protection of children to ensure that this act included the kinds of protection that children should have in the workplace. We're hearing more and more about the kinds of pesticides and other kinds of herbicides which are dust, and pollutants being used on the farms where most of the children work as berry pickers and these kinds of things. There is no statement in the act in terms of ensuring that no children should be hired in an environment which is deemed to be unsafe; that should have been included in this particular piece of legislation.

The other thing we have is a letter from the farmworkers themselves, talking about how unsafe the working conditions are, even for the children who are not working. They related to us a story of four deaths in the lower Fraser Valley during the last two weeks. This was dated July 30, 1980. They talk about three boys being drowned in a gravel pit and one infant being drowned in a bucket full of water. All of these children had been left unattended while their parents were working in the fields. They are wondering why it is that the legislation does not include some prerequisite that at least the farm labour contractors, if not the owners, should be required to ensure that there are decent child-care facilities for these children who have to accompany their parents to the field while the parents are working. This entire section — section 50 in part 6, dealing with children — is totally inadequate. I certainly am very disappointed that the minister did not introduce amendments and expand that particular section. It should not just say: "You may work if you are under 15 as long as there is permission by the director," but should spell out very clearly the kinds of working conditions and the kinds of protection for children who work or children who accompany their parents when they go to work in the fields.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to add my voice to that of the previous two speakers about the amendment as it affects the maternity leave section of the act, and to say that I certainly am opposed to that. I hope it's a mistake, and that the minister intends to add an amendment to the amendment to delete that particular section, but we will certainly be dealing with that in more detail when the bill goes into committee.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I too, along with the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, would like to add my concern regarding the serious omission of not having an occupational health and safety section to the bill. If you look at where unorganized workers are working, many of them are working in clerical jobs — for example, in the financial industries, banks, and so on. If anyone has ever had contact with people regarding their problems working in the clerical area.... Although one would not ordinarily think of them, some of them are very specific — for example, temperature. The conditions of the Factories Act really do not apply to people working in office settings. Sitting working at a desk all day at a temperature of, say, 52 or 55 degrees can be very uncomfortable, whereas working in a factory setting in a pulpmill or in the forest industry, in a mine or what have you, is a totally different situation. So there is a whole range of occupational health and safety forces and

[ Page 4029 ]

influences that affect unorganized workers in clerical areas, in farms and in domestic settings that really are not addressed in any way in this bill.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds is quite correct in pointing out that there is no address whatsoever to the question of pesticides and herbicides — the right of a worker working in an unorganized area to refuse to work and to be protected in his or her refusal to work if they feel that their health would be in jeopardy in that employment. I think unorganized workers are very vulnerable in that area, and I think the minister must be aware that even organized workers.... That is really on the frontier of labour management relations — when an organized worker refuses to work because he deems the work environment to be hazardous to his health. There is no language within these labour standards that affords an unorganized worker that kind of protection.

For example, there are many areas in the United States in the agriculture industry, which is very affected by herbicides, pesticides and other kinds of chemicals, where workers are concerned about their health, and justly so. There are many diseases that seem to have a chemical origin. But here in British Columbia the farmworkers in the Okanagan and the Fraser Valley are not afforded any protection whatsoever under this bill to go to the farmer and ask: "What chemicals are being used? In what way should they be handled to protect our health? Should we have protective clothing?"

For many farmworkers English is not their first language. They are intimidated in their employer-employee relationships. That whole area is not addressed in the bill.

I would like the minister to take under advisement an amendment adding an occupational health and safety guarantee for unorganized workers. It should be a standard, basic right of all working people, whether they fall under a formal collective agreement or under the protection of this minister's ministry. Their health should be protected by law and they should be afforded formal procedures with which to bring forward a case or legitimate concerns regarding things that may be damaging their health. I think that is a legitimate, valid proposal to the minister. I hope he will take it under advisement.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There have been a number of items raised, and I don't know whether or not I can get them done before 12 o'clock. As a general observation on some of the comments which have been raised by members of the opposition as to the application of the legislation, the fact is that the proposed legislation applies to everyone. There seemed to be some emphasis placed on farmworkers and domestics. Now I appreciate why the concern has been expressed, because they were two particular areas which required attention. I don't think that is in dispute. So perhaps there has been an emphasis placed on them to the detriment of others.

When we talk about regulations and exemptions where required.... As the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) put it — and very well, I thought — about the difficulties he had on the commission in which he was involved, with the difficulties of piecework during holidays and various things like that, sometimes there are exemptions. Of course, these exemptions must apply to all; there are other industries as well.

I acknowledge the point raised by my critic involving mass layoffs. But I would also ask that we raise something else, and this was a matter of some discussion, I can assure you. I think that if we were to look into a department within our ministry involving manpower and consultative services, and cooperation between the federal and provincial governments when in fact there is an industry shutdown.... I think the most recent example was Ocean Falls. In this day and age I think you will find, through industry and the trade unions involved, that there is a great deal of cooperation when some of these problems meet us on the horizon.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, I have raised the matter of the WCB with respect to domestics and farmworkers, and this is a matter of dialogue now; I can't say anything more about it at this time.

There are a number of items, Mr. Speaker, and I'm not sure of the pleasure of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I suggest that the member at this time adjourn debate.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I move adjournment until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.